RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

It was permissible for the Bank to continue disciplinary proceedings after the appellant's superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii); dismissal from service led to forfeiture of entire past service and disqualification from pensionary benefits under Regulation 22. High Court erred in substituting dismissal order...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Sharma; Respondent: Punjab National Bank; Respondent: Punjab National Bank Appellate Authority
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2007 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 975 of 2007 allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Dismissal From Service, Superannuation, Retiral Benefits, Pension Forfeiture, Quantum of Punishment, Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authority
Service Law Banking Law Disciplinary Proceedings Dismissal From Service Superannuation Retiral Benefits Pension Forfeiture Quantum of Punishment +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chandra Sharma

Appellant

Punjab National Bank

Respondent

Punjab National Bank Appellate Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Permissibility for Bank to continue disciplinary proceedings after superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii)
  2. 2 Whether High Court could substitute punishment imposed by Disciplinary/Appellate Authority

Ratio Decidendi

It was permissible for the Bank to continue disciplinary proceedings after the appellant's superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii); dismissal from service led to forfeiture of entire past service and disqualification from pensionary benefits under Regulation 22. High Court erred in substituting dismissal order with withholding retiral benefits.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2007 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 975 of 2007 allowed

Orders

  • No order as to costs